Case Background
Finini, Inc., a California corporation based in Ontario, California, worked as a product supplier for Mobstub, Inc., a Delaware corporation based in Brooklyn, New York. Mobstub operates an online discount retail website, Mobstub.com, where it sells goods from outside suppliers at a discount, with the suppliers shipping products directly to customers. Mobstub and Finini entered into a Master Supplier Agreement on August 4, 2022, under which Finini agreed to fulfill orders placed on Mobstub's website within three days of placement. The relationship began generating modest sales, but volume spiked sharply in November 2022 when one item, a tunic shirt, sold several thousand units. Soon after, disputes arose over whether Finini was actually shipping products from the United States as promised, and whether orders were being fulfilled on time. Mobstub terminated the relationship in December 2022. Finini filed suit against Mobstub in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on September 5, 2023, claiming it was never paid for goods and services it provided. Mobstub answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim against Finini, alleging breach of contract and fraud. The case proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury returned its verdict on March 18, 2025.
Cause
Finini brought three claims against Mobstub: a common count for goods and services rendered, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit, all centered on Mobstub's alleged failure to pay for completed work. Mobstub countered with claims of breach of contract and fraud in the inducement, alleging that Finini misrepresented where its inventory was located and failed to ship orders on time as the parties' agreement required.
Injury
Finini claimed that it delivered goods and performed services as requested by Mobstub but never received payment for that work. Mobstub claimed that Finini's misrepresentations about its inventory location, combined with late shipments to customers, damaged Mobstub's reputation and customer relationships, since late deliveries led to customer complaints, negative reviews, and lost future business.
Damages Sought
In paragraph 5 of the complaint, Finini listed four unpaid invoices totaling $125,066.15. In its Prayer for Relief, Finini requested compensatory damages of $125,065.15, plus restitutionary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorney's fees and costs. Mobstub, through its counterclaim, sought compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit. Mobstub separately alleged that Finini owed it $155,000 in liquidated damages under a contractual late-shipment provision.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Finini, Inc.
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Carl K. Osborne, Esq
Defendant: Mobstub, Inc.
· Counsel for Defendant: Benjamin Taylor
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Finini built its case on three theories. Under a common count for goods and services rendered, Finini alleged that Mobstub requested goods and services, that Finini provided them, and that Mobstub failed to pay for them. Under unjust enrichment, Finini argued that Mobstub received the benefit of Finini's goods and services and unjustly retained that benefit without payment. Under quantum meruit, Finini argued that the circumstances of the parties' dealings created an implied promise to pay, and that Mobstub continued enjoying the benefit of Finini's work without compensating Finini for it.
Defense
Mobstub denied most of Finini's substantive allegations. In its answer, Mobstub admitted that Finini fulfilled orders through October 2022 but denied that orders were fulfilled after that point. Mobstub raised sixteen affirmative defenses, including failure to state a claim, unclean hands, unjust enrichment, failure of condition precedent, statute of limitations, estoppel, set-off, laches, fraud, waiver, failure to mitigate damages, performance excused, statute of frauds, no damages, and a reservation of the right to add further defenses as discovery progressed.
Mobstub also brought a counterclaim. Mobstub alleged that before signing the agreement, Finini's representative, Caroline Kuo, promised that Finini's products were physically located in the United States and would ship immediately upon order. The agreement itself, at paragraph 2(c), stated that products would be owned by Finini and not sourced from third parties after orders came in. Mobstub alleged that around November 2022, it again asked Kuo to confirm that Finini had inventory ready to ship from the United States, and Kuo repeatedly reassured Mobstub that Finini could handle the volume. Mobstub alleged that tracking numbers Finini uploaded during this period looked unusual and showed no movement, indicating products were not actually in transit. When questioned about the delays, Kuo blamed a third-party logistics company and offered explanations that, according to Mobstub, made little sense.
Mobstub claimed that a large number of orders shipped late and arrived late, in violation of the agreement, with some orders taking as long as six weeks to reach customers. Mobstub argued that under the agreement, any order delivered more than eighteen days late became free to Mobstub, meaning Mobstub owed nothing for those orders. Mobstub also invoked a separate liquidated damages clause charging $3 per item per day for late shipments and calculated that Finini owed it $155,000 under that provision.
Mobstub's counterclaim raised two causes of action. The breach of contract claim was based on Finini's alleged failure to timely fulfill orders and failure to keep products in its own possession as promised. The fraud in the inducement claim was based on the allegation that Kuo's pre-contract representations about inventory location were false when made and caused Mobstub to enter into an agreement it otherwise would have avoided. Mobstub asked for compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
Jury Verdict
The case proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury returned its verdict on March 18, 2025, using a three-part verdict form addressing Finini's claim and Mobstub's counterclaim.
On the goods and services rendered question, the jury found that Mobstub had requested that Finini deliver goods or perform services, and that Mobstub had not paid Finini for the reasonable value of those goods or services. However, the jury found that Finini had not delivered the goods or performed the services as requested. Because that element failed, the jury awarded Finini no money on this claim and did not answer the damages question on this form.
On the contract formation question, the jury found that the contract terms were clear enough for both companies to understand their obligations, that the parties agreed to exchange something of value, and that the parties agreed to the contract's terms.
On the breach of contract question, the jury found that Mobstub and Finini had entered into a contract and that Mobstub had done all, or substantially all, of the significant things the contract required of it. The jury found that all conditions required for Finini's performance had occurred. The jury then found that Finini had failed to do something the contract required it to do, that Mobstub was harmed by that breach, and that Mobstub was entitled to liquidated damages. For the dollar amount of those damages, the jury wrote in "Atty Fees for Defense" rather than a specific figure.
Based on this verdict, Hon. Wesley L. Hsu entered judgment on September 15, 2025, in favor of Mobstub on all claims. The judgment specified that no money judgment would be awarded, and it confirmed that Mobstub, as the prevailing party under the parties' contract, could file a motion for attorney's fees and costs.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
